Group items tagged

This article identifies who Obama needs to focus on in the Swing State of North Carolina, African Americans. They were one of the main reasons that North Carolina sided with the democrats for the first time in decades. After 4 years with Obama's policies, some of these people who were originally very enthusiastic about voting for Obama are now uncertain about this new election. This is a state that could provide a big influence in the election and it will be interesting to follow it and see what happens.

This article calls to attention something that I never thought about before: "I guess part of it is that history has already been made." A lot of people who voted for Obama in 2008 may have done so so that they could feel like they were changing history, being a part of the first black president, and now that excitement may have worn off.

I saw that too, Sabrina. I think that Obama has to highlight what it means for the African American population if Romney is elected. He can't rely on energy that he generated in 2008.

This article raises interesting questions about Obamacare and what the states will decide to do with their own individual systems. I personally dislike the bill because of its fiscal problems and feel like forcing americans to purchase something from a third party is unconstitutional. 

This article talks about the problems with voting it Ohio. It discusses the voting laws that have changed when the state had republican vs democratic secretary's of state. As of now, Obama is ahead with early votes but with the Republicans changing around restrictions and laws making it harder for people to vote they article said that: " the polls could be wrong and the totals could easily be close enough that long enough lines and tossed ballots will make the difference." I find it really upsetting that the article had to say: "Now it's up to the voters to do the only thing they can: Try to vote." It is really sad that it has become hard to vote - it's a right that should be accessible to all.

I agree with Danielle that a popular vote would be fairer, but I'm not sure how it would help in this situation. I think that the electoral college is outdated and no longer works as the best way to implement democracy.

It seems though with these law being pass are trying to get the most accurate votes as possible, but is it really fair to create laws where your vote and your voice will not be heard. This article makes these laws seem terrible because it is a trap.

This is  short piece which predicts a few questions the candidates will have to answer in the coming debates. It claims that an exceeding expectations tactic "doesn't even fool anyone". Do you guys agree? Will the winner of the debates actually be the person who gives the soundest answers or will it be the most successful politicker? What other questions have to be answered? 

It's interesting that all the questions pretty much boil down to "What would you do differently than Obama has been doing?". I think that this type of question could give Romney an advantage because it's easier for him to separate himself from Obama's last four years that it is for Obama to separate from himself. I really hope, especially because there's been a lot of craving for specifics, the candidate with the soundest answers will win.

It will be interesting to see how the candidates do answer questions like these. The one that stood out to my was Romney and health care since it really is a vast change in viewpoint that he will be forced to discuss. I think the debates will give new perspective to the specifics of both candidates which in many cases through the campaigns have been avoided.

This article talks about the second presidential debate, which will be happening tonight. It explains how Obama will get a second chance to make up for his first debate. What do you guys think about this second chance? Is it really a chance? 

I mentioned this in Abby's article but I think a better performance can help Obama, it can't undo what has already happened. When I think about his attitude during the first debate it makes me question: Is he tired of being President? Have the hardships gotten to him? The article also mentions, "Obama needs strong support from women voters if he hopes to beat the Republican" and in my opinion if someone is voting based upon rights for women...they would have to vote for Obama.

This part of the article stood out for me: "Both sides claimed victory". Both sides think they won, whereas after last week's debate Obama admitted that he had lost. Why do you guys think this is? Do they both legitimately think that they won, or do they just want to seem confident?

This article explains where each of the candidates stand in polls after the debate. Interestingly, according to the polls shown here, 51% of voters like Romney and 56% like Obama, meaning there are a significant amount of people that like both. Also, it definitively says that Romney won the debate. Who do you think won?

For me, the most disappointing thing was Obama's lack of enthusiasm. I also think Romney won this debate and clearly made himself seem like a more appealing candidate. Although he did do that on this one particular night, I think the candidate's personality overall, and not just in one night, is more important. I liked this quote from the article because I think it sums up what happened well: "This suggests to me that while the debate was effective in energizing the Republican base and giving Romney a boost, it didn't fundamentally change perceptions of either man a great deal."

I, too, would argue that Romney won the debate especially due to both his enthusiasm and Obama's lack of enthusiasm. I think this article raises a good question of whether the debates/policies of the candidates are more important to the election or the likability/relatability of the candidates are more important. While we are being educated in all areas of the candidates and are basing our views off of this educated standpoint, many voters might not know a lot about either Romney or Obama, so do you think the outcomes of the debates will have as big of an impact on the election as one might hope?

Article talks about Romney's BIg Bird comment. It brought a lot of controversy in Woodstock , Connecticut the home town of Big Birds creator.  It just further more proves how the debates are more of a chance to observe the candidates.  

I think that it was more inappropriate that he directly told Jim Lehrer that he was going to cut his job. Yes Big Bird is an icon, but he is fictional. Jim Lehrer is a real person who was specifically told that he is going to get fired if Romney wins.

Will brings up a good point. Romney's campaign is all about making jobs, but should we think about those who work for federally run businesses? Jim Lehrer would just be one of many to actually lose their job if government spending was decreased...

This article is about the jokes that Romney and Obama made at a charity dinner. It also highlights the fact that they are focusing on women as the undecided voters and talks about the advertisements they put out to sway undecided women in their direction. This is interesting in that it combines two things we discussed in other articles on diigo: ad campaings and women voters. Do you think it would be more affective for Romney/Obama to take a more comedic or critical approach to winning these female undecided voters, and how do you think their advertisements affect their decisions if at all?

While I think that decisions about something as important as who the president should be SHOULD be based on statistics and facts, this late in the game people who haven't yet decided are going to latch on to anything, factual or personal, that appeals to them. Because of this, I agree with James that appealing to voter as a person is just as important as appealing to them as a candidate.

Yeah I agree completely. Although in reality the numbers may be most directly related to who is going to be a successful president, in terms of getting elected I think the stories are equally if not more convincing to voters.

Although this is just one poll vs. many, it shows great progress for Romney as we approach the third and final Presidential Debate. Just a week ago Romney was tied with Obama at an even 48%. What do you guys think of this?

Although I don't think polls are necessarily reliable, I think anyone looking at this election as a bistander can see that it is going to be a close race and if Romney is up in one poll one day, there is a high change that Obama will be up the next. I think that it can be assumed at this point that the candidates have a tough race to finish off and it is going to be close no matter what the actual results are.

I wonder if the closeness of this race has more to do with the candidates or the people. Are the candidates similar enough to gain the liking of the same amount of people, in contrast to previous elections where a certain candidate is the choice of many? Or has our population become more evenly divided between liberal and conservative views/are we just hungry for a different perspective to help us get out of our somewhat messy current situation? I can't help but think, on a personal level, how would Romney as president affect my life?

This is about a man who power lifted Obama, I was just curious what people thought about this.Was it professional? Does it help Obama's image?

Although this might not change many viewpoints I think it gives a really good impression for Obama. Being able to just stop into a random pizza place and joking around about the strength of a guy makes him seem like just a normal American guy. I think Van Duzer's quote in the article really made that point saying, "I don't vote party line, I vote who I feel comfortable with, and I do feel extremely comfortable with him." For some people feeling a connection and feel "comfortable" is really important. If Obama can make himself seem like the guy you could just hang out with I think that could potentially do a lot for his voters.

I agree that this makes Obama seem personable and "normal" which many people want to see in a candidate. I also think the nature of politics and presidents have changed throughout the years. Today, presidents seem more relatable and "down to earth" as they appear on talk shows and in magazines with their kids compared to how presidents were represented 50 years ago.

This article gives quote by Romney saying he is not going to change all of Obama's healthcare and he is not going to lower taxes for the wealthy. The article shows him trying to "meet the press" 

I find it really interesting that Romney does not want to get rid of Obama's health plan, rather he wants to change some parts of the reform like give coverage to kids for as long as they want as well as allowing people with pre-existing conditions. In my opinion just looking at what Romney's wants to do with healthcare is not as bad as it seems, but looking at it more thoroughly it would be a problem.

Yadria- I am slightly confused by what you mean with "but looking at it more thoroughly it would be a problem". Do you disagree with his plan? Just wondering. I agree with Ryan. Cutting spending, not taxes is the best way to get ourselves out of debt. The federal budget deficit is roughly a third of our federal spending, and is growing at an alarming rate. Our gross debt to GDP ratio is 104% because of our excessive spending. The per-capitia taxpayer debt (since only a third of americans pay taxes) is around 140,000. The fact of the matter is, no matter what way you want to look at it, we as a country are spending way too much. Yes, tax cuts for the middle class would be nice, but placing the debts on those making more than 250,000 a year is far from a solution because it is punishing those who work hard and stimulate the economy. Those small-buisness-owners, the job creators, are only going to get slammed with tax increases, and they are going to drag the economy down with them. Yes, our tax revenue is increasing, but drastically slower than the rate of our spending, which is a massive problem that can only be solved by cutting spending and reducing our budget deficit, unless Obama wants to try to increase taxes by 150%.

this article lists each of the factors that are going to decide the last 2 months of the election, including money, debates, and swing states, all of which I expected. However, one factor that I didn't think about is Johnson's influence in the overall election. He seems to be gaining votes from republicans more than democrats, which could harm Romney more than I would have thought.

It's interesting to me that which candidate people vote for seems to have nothing to do with ideas or plans for the country, just how much advertising there is. Are people really this easily influenced by advertising? Also, it's funny that they have mock debates, Obama going against John Kerry as Romney. And, Savannah, I was surprised about Gary Johnson, too. I've never heard of him before.

I'm really bothers me that "Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney have to build substantial room into their schedules for fund-raising, including more time than they would like traveling to places that are not competitive politically but are flush with wealthy donors, starting with New York and Los Angeles." I don't like how so much of the election is spent raising money rather than making more explicit platforms and addressing important issues.

Overall, this article is very critical of Romney, claiming that Obama is making bigger leads in swing states. Romney is extremely shifty in his views and doesn't make it clear what finances he has planned. Also, this article hints towards the end the slight opinion differences of Romney and ryan which could be very problematic.

"sixty days is like sixty years in campaign time" seems like an overplay of hopefulness. I take from this article that Romney's people can only really argue that Mitt still has a chance while Obama's people believe he will more than likely win.

Romney really does need to get his act together. Ryan seems to be running the show a little bit more than he should, but with the debates soon to start, Romney will have a little more hope on his side. Also, unemployment has risen from 1.9% through Obama's term, and statistically when unemployment is greater than 7.2 the incumbent doesn't win. The election has even changed drastically since I posted this article: The libyan assassination, the Romney 47% dependent on Government, etc, I do agree that 60 days can seem like 60 years. Romney does have to cover a lot of ground.

This article highlight's Romney's lack of specificity on the issue of immigration at a speech where he had a hispanic audience. This also slightly goes into a comparison of Obama and Romney's views on immigration. 

I think that this same message applies to many other parts of the campaign. Giving only ideas without any propositions of how it is going to happen as well as being extremely vague.

Yes, Romney isn't specific at times, but then again, he is a politician. Like Obama, or other smart politicians, he is shifty on his politics to appeal to the masses. When Obama gives speeches to colleges, he talks about tax cuts for the middle class and "spreading the wealth around" (direct quote from 1998 speech) and then when he talks to the DNC he talks about how he isn't nessicarily in favor of increasing taxes for the wealthy. So what if Romney is shifty, Obama is too.

This article talks about the importance for a Candidate to win Florida. In 2008, Obama won Flora by only 3% and four years previous, Bush won Florida by a slightly larger 5%. Because Florida has a total of 29 electoral votes, it is the biggest and therefore one of the most important swing states. Not only that, but the majority of the state does not matter as compared to a small section known as the I-4 who really do determine this election themselves. 

This is going to be an interesting swing state due to its larger population of senior citizens and with Romney appealing significantly to the senior citizen population with a 52-41 percent lead over Obama according to an associated press-GfK poll with seniors likely to vote.

It's interesting to me that it seems that the entire election can come down to one swing state, and the whole state to one county. I think this is a example of why the electoral college isn't right-no one county should have that much power.